|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Jul 21, 2024 10:02:44 GMT
...But we are where we are - with a government with an overwhelming majority that is only supported by 20% of the population. What could possibly go wrong?... Elsewhere, we'd call that a dictatorship. No you wouldn't. A Dictatorship would not have had elections in the first place. A Dictatorship would only have one "politician" total. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Jul 21, 2024 10:13:36 GMT
Elsewhere, we'd call that a dictatorship. No you wouldn't. A Dictatorship would not have had elections in the first place. A Dictatorship would only have one "politician" total. All The Best So you don't think that Hitler was a dictator. I disagree. |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Jul 21, 2024 10:14:28 GMT
But we are where we are - with a government with an overwhelming majority that is only supported by 20% of the population. That's a lie, and don't pretend you didn't know it was lie when you wrote it - you did. Labour obtained 33.7% of Votes Cast. You can't make any assumptions at all about eligible voters who did not cast a vote, because they did not cast a vote.For all you know 75% of those who did not vote could support Labour; but you have no way at all of proving or disproving that. Now, it is clearly wrong that Labour has 63% of Seats with 33.7% of the Vote; but every candidate who stood, for any party, know that could, and likely would, happen. If they find the methodology of FPTP so wrong they have ONLY two choices: 1) refuse to take part in such a broken system, 2) take part and try and change it from within if they are elected. But is does no one any good at all to lie about the outcome; that only further erodes trust in our electoral system, which will see less and less people voting, meaning you'll have more anomalous and less representative outcomes, not less. I wonder, did you moan so much about FPTP when it returned Governments you agreed with more than you agree with Labour? If not you are a hypocrite. I have written to every MP who has sat in my constituency for the last 25 years asking them to support any and all efforts to move away from FPTP and toward PR. Even those whose other politics I find broad agreement with. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Jul 21, 2024 10:21:33 GMT
No you wouldn't. A Dictatorship would not have had elections in the first place. A Dictatorship would only have one "politician" total. All The Best So you don't think that Hitler was a dictator. I disagree. Well, it is possible for someone, once elected, to make of themselves a Dictator. I would argue that was what Hitler did, by declaring himself Fuhrer But it is simply not possible to say the current UK Government is a Dictatorship. There is no ONE person in the UK Government that has "total power" and that is what is required in a Dictatorship. The person closest to having that "total power" is the Monarch; who can refuse to enact any legislation at will, can dissolve Parliament at will, and can refuse, at will, the creation of any successor government once the previous government is dissolved. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Jul 21, 2024 10:22:14 GMT
You can't make any assumptions at all about eligible voters who did not cast a vote... There's no need to assume, Nulla: They didn't vote Labour and that's a fact. |
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Jul 21, 2024 10:25:05 GMT
Elsewhere, we'd call that a dictatorship. No you wouldn't. A Dictatorship would not have had elections in the first place. A Dictatorship would only have one "politician" total. All The Best Well that's not the whole story is it. I mean yes, I agree where there are no elections it's clearly a dictatorship But Russia has an interesting way of holding elections. An invitation goes out to anyone keen to stand in opposition to Putin, and shortly after the secret police arrange their abduction and murder. The Chinese President and Vice President are elected by the National Congress of The People's Republic of China and I suppose you think that's a democracy ? Xi calls it a 'whole process people's democracy' but then again he would, wouldn't he and as was said above, I'm sure Hitler was actually elected.... |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jul 21, 2024 10:31:07 GMT
So you don't think that Hitler was a dictator. I disagree. Well, it is possible for someone, once elected, to make of themselves a Dictator. I would argue that was what Hitler did, by declaring himself Fuhrer But it is simply not possible to say the current UK Government is a Dictatorship. There is no ONE person in the UK Government that has "total power" and that is what is required in a Dictatorship. The person closest to having that "total power" is the Monarch; who can refuse to enact any legislation at will, can dissolve Parliament at will, and can refuse, at will, the creation of any successor government once the previous government is dissolved. All The Best It does not need to be one person, it could be a group and as long as absolute power has a defined area of exercising then that is a dictatorship. Total power means actually having it and able to exercise it with no consequences. Legally a dictatorship may exist but in actuality that absolute power cannot be exercised without serious risk to the 'dictator' that would end his dictatorship so really it is not absolute power at all. |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Jul 21, 2024 10:31:55 GMT
You can't make any assumptions at all about eligible voters who did not cast a vote... There's no need to assume, Nulla: They didn't vote Labour and that's a fact. Not voting Labour does NOT mean they do not "support Labour" which is what Pacifico's claim was, and what I was responding to. It could mean that. It could also mean they couldn't be arsed to vote because they thought Labour already had it in the bag. It could also mean something happened that prevented them from voting, and that "something" could be one of hundreds of different reasons. It is ONLY possible to infer "support for a party" from Votes cast. You can't infer a "lack of support for a party" from uncast votes because there are literally hundreds of reasons someone might not have cast a vote. There is an adage that was drilled into me at University for History and Archaeology, but which applies to all forms of analysis and theorising: "absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence". That applies here. We simply can not make any valid assumptions or inferences about votes that were not cast, other than that they were not cast. And the outcome of every election that has ever been held has ONLY EVER been determined by Votes Cast. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Jul 21, 2024 10:37:00 GMT
So you don't think that Hitler was a dictator. I disagree. Well, it is possible for someone, once elected, to make of themselves a Dictator. So that's your first point out of the window. But it is simply not possible to say the current UK Government is a Dictatorship. There is no ONE person in the UK Government that has "total power" and that is what is required in a Dictatorship. The person closest to having that "total power" is the Monarch; who can refuse to enact any legislation at will, can dissolve Parliament at will, and can refuse, at will, the creation of any successor government once the previous government is dissolved. All The Best And now we're into the realms of autistic dogmatism that allows only one (your) definition: You see a dictatorship being the exercise of power by an individual. I see it as either that or the exercise of power by a government that has neither popular support nor effective opposition. Exactly as we have now. |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Jul 21, 2024 10:39:52 GMT
Well, it is possible for someone, once elected, to make of themselves a Dictator. I would argue that was what Hitler did, by declaring himself Fuhrer But it is simply not possible to say the current UK Government is a Dictatorship. There is no ONE person in the UK Government that has "total power" and that is what is required in a Dictatorship. The person closest to having that "total power" is the Monarch; who can refuse to enact any legislation at will, can dissolve Parliament at will, and can refuse, at will, the creation of any successor government once the previous government is dissolved. All The Best , it could be a group and as long as absolute power has a defined area of exercising then that is a dictatorship. Total power means actually having it and able to exercise it with no consequences. Legally a dictatorship may exist but in actuality that absolute power cannot be exercised without serious risk to the 'dictator' that would end his dictatorship so really it is not absolute power at all. Yes it does if you we are using the the normal definitions of those words. Dictatorship: a country governed by a dictator. Dictator: a ruler with total power over a country, typically one who has obtained control by force. Ruler: a person exercising government or dominion. There is of course the Totalitarian State, but even that would require the abolition and prohibition of "opposition parties". We still have opposition parties, so we are not a Totalitarian State either. The claim that we are a dictatorship is demonstrably false if we are using the standard definition of the word Dictatorship. If we are free to use any meaning we want for any word at all then we may as well call it a Utopia. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Jul 21, 2024 10:40:52 GMT
There's no need to assume, Nulla: They didn't vote Labour and that's a fact. Not voting Labour does NOT mean they do not "support Labour" ... Yes it does because they didn't vote for them!🤣 |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Jul 21, 2024 10:41:07 GMT
Well, it is possible for someone, once elected, to make of themselves a Dictator. So that's your first point out of the window. But it is simply not possible to say the current UK Government is a Dictatorship. There is no ONE person in the UK Government that has "total power" and that is what is required in a Dictatorship. The person closest to having that "total power" is the Monarch; who can refuse to enact any legislation at will, can dissolve Parliament at will, and can refuse, at will, the creation of any successor government once the previous government is dissolved. All The Best And now we're into the realms of autistic dogmatism that allows only one (your) definition: You see a dictatorship being the exercise of power by an individual.I see it as either that or the exercise of power by a government that has neither popular support nor effective opposition. Exactly as we have now. No I don't see it as that. The English Language does. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jul 21, 2024 10:43:05 GMT
There's no need to assume, Nulla: They didn't vote Labour and that's a fact. Not voting Labour does NOT mean they do not "support Labour" which is what Pacifico's claim was, and what I was responding to. It could mean that. It could also mean they couldn't be arsed to vote because they thought Labour already had it in the bag. It could also mean something happened that prevented them from voting, and that "something" could be one of hundreds of different reasons. It is ONLY possible to infer "support for a party" from Votes cast. You can't infer a "lack of support for a party" from uncast votes because there are literally hundreds of reasons someone might not have cast a vote. There is an adage that was drilled into me at University for History and Archaeology, but which applies to all forms of analysis and theorising: "absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence". That applies here. We simply can not make any valid assumptions or inferences about votes that were not cast, other than that they were not cast. And the outcome of every election that has ever been held has ONLY EVER been determined by Votes Cast. All The Best I would tend to agree in some ways, we hear a lot about parties being rejected because they did not receive enough.votes. But we cannot infer that from votes cast we can only infer a level of support, however we can infer that votes cast is a level of support as the reasons for not voting are unknown. So we can quite accurately assess a level of support as those votes not cast are not active votes of support. So we can infer a lack of support from the votes not cast as support is a thing requiring a positive action ie casting a vote. Referenda are not the same as that normally requires a Yes or No so from the votes not cast one cannot infer anything. |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Jul 21, 2024 10:43:17 GMT
Not voting Labour does NOT mean they do not "support Labour" ... Yes it does because they didn't vote for them!🤣 No, it just means they chose not to EXPRESS that support at the Ballot, on election day. I note in that post that you did not express condemnation of paedophiles. Should we now assume you support paedophiles? Al The Best |
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Jul 21, 2024 10:46:11 GMT
But we are where we are - with a government with an overwhelming majority that is only supported by 20% of the population. That's a lie, and don't pretend you didn't know it was lie when you wrote it - you did. Labour obtained 33.7% of Votes Cast. You can't make any assumptions at all about eligible voters who did not cast a vote, because they did not cast a vote.For all you know 75% of those who did not vote could support Labour; but you have no way at all of proving or disproving that. Now, it is clearly wrong that Labour has 63% of Seats with 33.7% of the Vote; but every candidate who stood, for any party, know that could, and likely would, happen. If they find the methodology of FPTP so wrong they have ONLY two choices: 1) refuse to take part in such a broken system, 2) take part and try and change it from within if they are elected. But is does no one any good at all to lie about the outcome; that only further erodes trust in our electoral system, which will see less and less people voting, meaning you'll have more anomalous and less representative outcomes, not less. I wonder, did you moan so much about FPTP when it returned Governments you agreed with more than you agree with Labour? If not you are a hypocrite. I have written to every MP who has sat in my constituency for the last 25 years asking them to support any and all efforts to move away from FPTP and toward PR. Even those whose other politics I find broad agreement with. All The Best Well I have moaned about every election result since pretty much ever because I believe we should have a system that offers True PR with the final makeup of the chamber empowered being as close as possible to the number of votes cast across the entire land mass governed. I say that knowing full well I will face criticism that the incursion of minority candidates with minority views will threaten to make the process unworkable, or grant minority extremists - like the cottage burning and reservoir bombing Plaid Cymru and the murdering shitbag' Martin McGuiness - power they do not deserve, but the fact is when faced with candidates they disapprove if getting into positions of government, both labour and Tory examined ways to take on board some of the policy decisions those elected instead of them wanted to pursue, in hope those voting against mainstream parties might be swayed..... I keep harking back to Phil Woolas the now disqualified politician who as soon as Griffin and Brons were elected under PR to the European Parliament, started speaking in favour of demanding Asylum Seekers register as such at their first point of entry to the EU and not be allowed to slink across the EU to enter here Illegally but only as legal EU citizens if their asylum claim heard in the country of entry were upheld, whereupon legal dissemination to any EU country would be permitted. It goes without saying had this BNP policy of requiring a decision between made at the point of entry been upheld and implemented, Rishi would not have had any boats to stop. Strange how Labour's immigration minister wanted that AFTER the BNP got some election success and if course Cameron dumped any such idea as absurd |
|
